Creation — a bad move?

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they called The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.¹

As creation myths go, that's pretty ridiculous, but compare it to this (more or less random) alternative:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.²

It then goes on a bit, tending to lose its way regarding the logical order of events, but we can cut it some slack as it's a myth. But the point of contrasting these two accounts of how things got started is to show that neither is more likely or more convincing than the other. It's possible to pick holes in both stories: the first one, for instance, simply states the creation of the Universe as bald fact — this is not exactly explanatory. The second example does exactly the same: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It just happened. It was done, by this character called "God" who is simply assumed to be there without any sort of explanation of who he was or where he came from.

Both examples may yield some insight from the application of literary criticism — but as explanations of how things came to be, they are equally misleading and uninformative. If you're seeking an explanation that correlates with reality, I suggest you look elsewhere.

---

1. The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (original radio scripts), Douglas Adams, London 1985, Pan Books, p 90, "Fit the Fifth"
2. The Bible, Authorised King James Version, "Genesis" chapter 1, verses 1-5

Some late night Burnee links

Grassroots Skeptics — Skeptical Activism Campaign Manual
Skeptical resources continue to grow.

Where Can I Find the Really Good Theology? Part One. : EvolutionBlog

"I came to see theology as a moat protecting the castle of religion. But it was not a moat filled with water. No. It was filled with sewage. And the reason religion's defenders wanted us to spend so much time splashing around in the moat had nothing to do with actually learning anything valuable or being edified by the experience. It was so that when we emerged on the other side we would be so rank and fetid and generally disgusted with ourselves that we would be in no condition to argue with anyone."

Jason Rosenhouse follows Jerry Coyne into that unappetizing moat.
Part Two here:
Where Can I Find the Really Good Theology? Part Two : EvolutionBlog
(Via Malcolm Stein.)

My position on communicating skepticism : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers' position is "no truck with accommodationism". It's not everyone's position, and might not work with some people. But it does work in certain circumstances, and is therefore a valid approach.

Is It Cold in Here? | Cocktail Party Physics, Scientific American Blog Network
So, yes, it's been blown up out of all proportion. But there's apparently a reason for this, and the "atheist and skeptic movement" ignores that reason at its peril.

Skepticule Extra 009 available for download

Stand by your podcatcher, the ninth episode of Skepticule Extra is about to drop into your mp3 player. Cruelly truncated in its prime, this episode cuts off just as it gets into its stride, but needs must when the evangelist calls.

Reith, Muhammed, Jesus (he was a Muslim, you know), Jews, Knowing everything, Telling homeopaths what you really think, Camping with Jesus (he was a Muslim, you know), Touring the End of the World, Prayers before bounty, Debating secularism (or not).

Like I said, short show.

500 miles for a good cause

Today The Mile by Mile Cycling Team began their marathon charity cycle ride from Lancashire to Hampshire, aiming to double their fundraising (currently around £10,000) in aid of Help for Heroes. Three lecturers at South Downs College are cycling 500 miles over ten days in memory of one of their students, Richard Hollington, who died as a result of injuries received on active service in Afghanistan.

The team's website is here:
http://www.milebymilecyclingteam.co.uk/

The blog is here:
http://milebymilebikeride.blogspot.com/

Follow them on Twitter here:
http://twitter.com/#!/MxMBikeRide
(use the hashtag #mbmct)

Find out more here:
http://www.milebymilecyclingteam.co.uk/events.html

Videos!

Maps!

Donate!

A hypothetical belief — and its effects

Imagine holding a belief such that everyone who doesn't share your belief is a liar.

Suppose you hold a belief that the universe is a particular way. That's not asking much; I suspect most people hold such a belief, to a more or less certain degree. Suppose, however, that your belief is very certain, to the degree that it's inconceivable (to you) that you could be mistaken. That's asking a little more, but it still doesn't place you at the extremity of the belief bell-curve.

But suppose the belief you hold — about the particular way the universe is — includes the idea that everyone else actually shares your belief, even if they deny it. If yours is a minority belief it places you in the invidious position of believing (to a degree that it's inconceivable to you that you could be mistaken) that almost everyone else is a pathological liar.

This is not a pleasant place to be, and will adversely affect your relationships with almost everyone. It's likely you will have serious issues with trust. If you firmly believe that most people are willfully lying about their own most fundamental beliefs, you will automatically (perhaps even unconsciously) label them as dishonest and untrustworthy. You will have difficulty taking their words at face value and will constantly question their motives. In short, you will mistrust everything about them.

Consequently, when events don't unfold as hoped or planned, your first instinct will be to assume the liars have cheated you, rather than to ascribe adverse events to simple error, happenstance or the vagaries of inanimate technology. You will be awash in a sea of knaves and scoundrels, against whom you must erect impregnable security.

Meanwhile those "knaves and scoundrels" who observe your actions will see only hubris and paranoia.

But as I indicated in the title of this post, this is a hypothetical scenario. No-one would actually believe something like that, would they?

Burnee links for Sunday

No Burnee links last Thursday (been busy, you know?) so here are a few. Other posts coming too.

The EHRC's stance on religious rights undermines its credibility | Andrew Copson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
It does appear as if the EHCR has forgotten what the "E" stands for.

CriticalThinking.org - Critical Thinking Model 1
A useful overview, with plenty of explanatory information.
(Via Vaughan Jones.)

Greta Christina's Blog: Why We Have to Talk About This: Atheism, Sexism, and Blowing Up The Internet
The last word on "Elevatorgate"?

A Skeptical Look at Aliens : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers' talk at TAM — text and slides.

Giving teachers confidence to engage pupils on beliefs- Belfast Telegraph | The Tony Blair Faith Foundation

"An innovative scheme to encourage inter-faith dialogue in schools is being backed by former prime minister Tony Blair, writes James Nelson"

Wishy-washy waffle — par for course at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (which is not, I'm reliably informed, the name of a pop group). "Inter-faith dialogue" is doomed; it can never be more than lip-service to some kind of accommodation, because at bottom different faiths hold different and mutually exclusive beliefs. The different faiths may cosy up to each other when they want the same thing (such as "respect" for unsubstantiated, nonsensical beliefs) but at heart they are fundamentally opposed to each other.
(Via Ophelia Benson, who described this piece as a "warm pool of sick".)

‪Thunderf00t -Westboro Baptist Church (full interview)‬‏ - YouTube
The argument from loud voice, insult, not listening, talking over and interrupting. Why on earth did these two women agree to a video interview with Thunderf00t?
http://youtu.be/OTSbfs32yCU

The (unexpected) Skepticule Record

The recording of last Monday's unexpected "Fourth Debate on Presuppositional Apologetics" is now available for your endurance:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/07/skeprec-004-20110711.html

Note that this recording is about 69 minutes long (including intro and outro) and entirely unedited apart from a Skype drop-out in the middle.

You will be completely forgiven if you decide to skip it.